If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Privacy and human rights organizations expressed concern Tuesday after a coalition of intelligence agencies renewed a call for technology companies to allow so-called "backdoor" access to encrypted content and devices.

The reaction came following a weekend statement from the "Five Eyes" intelligence agencies calling on "industry partners" to provide a way for law enforcement to access encrypted content that may not be available even with a search warrant.

The call by the agencies from the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand threatens to reignite a long-simmering debate on encryption.

"Many of the same means of encryption that are being used to protect personal, commercial and government information are also being used by criminals, including child sex offenders, terrorists and organized crime groups to frustrate investigations and avoid detection and prosecution," said the statement from the five countries issued by Australia's Department of Home Affairs.

Without voluntary cooperation, the agencies said, "we may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative or other measures to achieve lawful access solutions."

While some law enforcement agencies contend that encryption is being used to shield criminal activity, tech firms and privacy activists argue that any weakening of encryption would harm security for all users.

"The risk is that these countries will compel providers to build a backdoor that not only governments will exploit but hackers, criminals and other bad guys will use as well," said Greg Nojeim of the Washington-based Center for Democracy & Technology.Story Continues

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
progress. -- Joseph JoubertAttachment 1008

Some small progress in the Net Neutrality fight. Bill passes the senate, but getting the bill past the House is another story.
Senate passes measure repealing changes to net neutrality rules
By Ted Barrett and Daniella Diaz

The Senate voted Wednesday to pass a measure that would repeal changes to net neutrality rules that were recently adopted by the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission.
The measure, which was backed by all 49 Democrats and Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Kennedy of Louisiana, will be sent to the GOP-led House, where it'll likely go nowhere -- and President Donald Trump is unlikely to back it.
While Collins' support had been public leading up to the vote, Murkowski's and Kennedy's "yes" votes came as a surprise to some.

<snip>
"That fundamental equality of access is what has made the internet so dynamic," he said on the Senate floor. "Net neutrality protected everyone ... that era, the era of an open Internet, will unfortunately soon come to an end."
He continued: "The Democratic position is very simple. Let's treat the internet like the public good that it is."Story Continues

California got tired of waiting for congress to restore Net Neutrality protections. California wrote it's own law, and Governor Brown recently signed it into law. Now the Feds are crying Foul.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is set to file a lawsuit against California, just hours after the state introduced a new bill to protect net neutrality.

According to campaigners in favour of net neutrality, the new law will help ensure a free and open internet by preventing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Verizon and AT&T from creating “fast lanes” for firms who are willing and able to pay for their traffic to be prioritised.

Measures to protect net neutrality were first introduced under the Obama administration, however they were abolished in December by the Trump-era Federal Communications Commission.

“While the Trump administration does everything in its power to undermine our democracy, we in California will continue to do what’s right for our residents,” said California state senator Scott Wiener, who authored the net neutrality bill.

The DOJ claims that the law passed by California governor Jerry Brown is an attempt to “subvert the federal government’s deregulatory approach” to the internet.

“Under the constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce – the federal government does,” said attorney general, Jeff Sessions.

“Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy. The Justice Department should not have to spend valuable time and resources to file this suit today, but we have a duty to defend the prerogatives of the federal government and protect our constitutional order.”Story Continues

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
progress. -- Joseph JoubertAttachment 1008

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is set to file a lawsuit against California, just hours after the state introduced a new bill to protect net neutrality.

According to campaigners in favour of net neutrality, the new law will help ensure a free and open internet by preventing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Verizon and AT&T from creating “fast lanes” for firms who are willing and able to pay for their traffic to be prioritised.

Measures to protect net neutrality were first introduced under the Obama administration, however they were abolished in December by the Trump-era Federal Communications Commission.

“While the Trump administration does everything in its power to undermine our democracy, we in California will continue to do what’s right for our residents,” said California state senator Scott Wiener, who authored the net neutrality bill.

The DOJ claims that the law passed by California governor Jerry Brown is an attempt to “subvert the federal government’s deregulatory approach” to the internet.

“Under the constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce – the federal government does,” said attorney general, Jeff Sessions.

“Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy. The Justice Department should not have to spend valuable time and resources to file this suit today, but we have a duty to defend the prerogatives of the federal government and protect our constitutional order.”Story Continues

Thanks for posting... I read a couple of articles on what California did. Three states California, Oregon and Washington State have passed Net Neutrality laws.

Apple to Australia: “This is no time to weaken encryption”
Apple underscores that access for only good guys is "a false premise."

By Cyrus Farivar

Apple has filed its formal opposition to a new bill currently being proposed by the Australian government that critics say would weaken encryption.

If it passes, the "Assistance and Access Bill 2018" would create a new type of warrant that would allow what governments often call "lawful access" to thwart encryption, something that the former Australian attorney general proposed last year.

The California company said in a filing provided to reporters on Friday that the proposal was flawed.

"This is no time to weaken encryption," the company wrote. "There is profound risk of making criminals’ jobs easier, not harder. Increasingly stronger—not weaker—encryption is the best way to protect against these threats."

Apple took direct aim at what American authorities have called the "going dark" problem—the notion that strong encryption makes it far too difficult for law enforcement to access hardened devices.

The Department of Justice and the FBI have pushed for something similar for decades to no avail—no specific legislation has been put forward in the United States since the failed "Clipper Chip" proposal during the Clinton administration. However, high-ranking DOJ and FBI officials during both the Obama and Trump administrations have continued to lambast this issue.

"Some suggest that exceptions can be made, and access to encrypted data could be created just for only those sworn to uphold the public good," Apple continued. "That is a false premise. Encryption is simply math. Any process that weakens the mathematical models that protect user data for anyone will by extension weaken the protections for everyone. It would be wrong to weaken security for millions of law-abiding customers in order to investigate the very few who pose a threat."

Don't you hate it when Governments become the police force for private industry?
Nothing currently stopping a content provider from demanding content removal, or filing a civil law suit against alledged copyright infringement.
Does EU really need a new law?
Have to wonder, is the new law just an excuse for LEO to collect and save more data. A form of surveillance?

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki on Monday spoke out against a proposed copyright law in Europe, and she appealed to content creators on the platform to take the lead in the protest.

The legislation, Article 13 of the EU's Directive on Copyright, would impose tougher regulations on platforms like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to make sure they aren't in violation of copyrights. Critics of Article 13 say the rule could stifle creative on the internet, especially when memes often rely on the intellectual property of others.

"This legislation poses a threat to both your livelihood and your ability to share your voice with the world," Wojcicki wrote in a blog post. "And, if implemented as proposed, Article 13 threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs, European creators, businesses, artists and everyone they employ."

She added, "Please take a moment to learn more about how it could affect your channel and take action immediately." She also asked creators to protest using the hashtag #SaveYourInternet.

Wojcicki mentioned that Google, which owns YouTube, has already built software called ContentID, which seeks to identify videos with copyrighted material. Story Continues

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
progress. -- Joseph JoubertAttachment 1008

On 06/21/18: Motion to reconsider laid on the table and agreed to without objection. Action By: House of Representatives.

It is possible this legislation could get pushed through as a "rider" attached to one of the many "stop gap budget" bills. If attached as a "rider" to a "stop gap budget", it could become law without public knowledge. It would not be surprising if the legislation was rebranded when pushed through.

Not so secure Apple encryption.
Rumor has it the next IOS update will disable the port after one hour to prevent this magic box from working.
Move, countermove.

FBI Refuses to Say Whether It Bought iPhone Unlocking Tech 'GrayKey'
Motherboard found that federal and more local law enforcement agencies have bought tech to unlock up to date iPhones. But the FBI, which is pushing for backdoors, refuses to say whether it has also purchased the equipment.

This is part of an ongoing Motherboard series on the proliferation of phone cracking technology, the people behind it, and who is buying it. Follow along here.

Thursday, Motherboard published an investigation showing that police forces and federal agencies across the country have purchased relatively cheap tools to unlock up-to-date iPhones, bypassing their encryption. The news came as the FBI and Justice Department have reignited their efforts to find a more permanent solution to accessing encrypted devices, likely with the creation of a so-called backdoor.

Even though the FBI is at the forefront of highlighting the going dark debate, in which law enforcement officials say they are being cut-off from evidence of crimes due to encryption, the Bureau has refused to say whether or not it also bought the new iPhone cracking technology, called GrayKey, in a response to a Freedom of Information Act request from Motherboard. The stance is even more bizarre considering online records show the FBI has also asked for a quote on six GrayKey devices.

“The FBI neither confirms nor denies the existence of records which would indicate whether an individual or organization is or has ever been of investigatory interest,” the response, received by Motherboard Thursday, reads. (Motherboard received a similarly worded response when requesting contracts between the FBI and Hacking Team, an Italian malware vendor which the FBI did purchase surveillance software from).

A company called Grayshift sells the GrayKey. The device itself is a small, 4x4 inches box with two lightning cables for plugging in iPhones. According to cybersecurity firm Malwarebytes, the device can unlock iPhones in around two hours, or the process can take three days or longer if the passcode is 6 digits long. Forbes previously reported, based on GrayKey marketing material, that the tool can unlock even the iPhone X, Apple’s most recent phone, as well as devices running iOS 11, the latest Apple mobile operating system.

Motherboard’s investigation into the proliferation of GrayKey found that the Maryland State Police and Indiana State Police have procured the technology; local police forces have indicated they may have purchased the tool; other forces have received quotes from Grayshift; that the DEA is interested in sourcing GrayKey; the Secret Service plans to buy six of the boxes; and that the State Department has bought GrayKey. Story Continues

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
progress. -- Joseph JoubertAttachment 1008

And Apple's counter move.
Have to say I'm always suspicious when someone plays the "we have to save the children" card.
Rather emotional ploy that serves to deflect intelligent debate.
Apple to Close iPhone Security Hole That Law Enforcement Uses to Crack Devices
By Jack Nicas

SAN FRANCISCO — Apple has long positioned the iPhone as a secure device that only its owner can open. That has led to battles with law enforcement officials who want to get information off them, including a well-publicized showdown with the F.B.I. in 2016 after Apple refused to help open the locked iPhone of a mass killer.

The F.B.I. eventually paid a third party to get into the phone, circumventing the need for Apple’s help. Since then, law enforcement agencies across the country have increasingly employed that strategy to get into locked iPhones they hope will hold the key to cracking cases.

Now Apple is closing the technological loophole that let authorities hack into iPhones, angering police and other officials and reigniting a debate over whether the government has a right to get into the personal devices that are at the center of modern life.

Apple said it was planning an iPhone software update that would effectively disable the phone’s charging and data port — the opening where users plug in headphones, power cables and adapters — an hour after the phone is locked. While a phone can still be charged, a person would first need to enter the phone’s password to transfer data to or from the device using the port.

Such a change would hinder law enforcement officials, who have typically been opening locked iPhones by connecting another device running special software to the port, often days or even months after the smartphone was last unlocked. News of Apple’s planned software update has begun spreading through security blogs and law enforcement circles — and many in investigative agencies are infuriated.

“If we go back to the situation where we again don’t have access, now we know directly all the evidence we’ve lost and all the kids we can’t put into a position of safety,” said Chuck Cohen, who leads an Indiana State Police task force on internet crimes against children. The Indiana State Police said it unlocked 96 iPhones for various cases this year, each time with a warrant, using a $15,000 device it bought in March from a company called Grayshift.

But privacy advocates said Apple would be right to fix a security flaw that has become easier and cheaper to exploit. “This is a really big vulnerability in Apple’s phones,” said Matthew D. Green, a professor of cryptography at Johns Hopkins University. A Grayshift device sitting on a desk at a police station, he said, “could very easily leak out into the world.”Story Continues

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
progress. -- Joseph JoubertAttachment 1008